Preparing For Retreat
When the history of our misadventure in Iraq is written, scholars will focus on our failure to mount a counterinsurgency strategy while wasting our resources on counterterrorism operations that inadvertently fed the insurgency. During my recent trip to Iraq I saw firsthand that US forces in Iraq are focused on four principle missions:
- Counterterrorism operations
- Force Protection (securing US personnel and their bases)
- Keeping Logistics supply routes open
- Training Iraqi military forces
U.S. military forces are conducting an impressive number of counterterrorism operations every day. The term, "counterterrorism operations", refers to activities designed to identify, locate, and kill or capture terrorist operatives. It is an offensive rather than defensive tactic. Although we are capturing and killing extremist jihadist terrorists every day, the number of insurgent attacks and terrorist incidents in Iraq has continued to increase. Last year, for example, there were about 70 insurgent attacks a day. Now, there are more than 75 a day. Despite killing Zarqawi and others like him, the trend line is up, not down.
U.S. forces not involved in counterterrorism operations are involved with defensive operations -- force protection and supply route protection. The United States does not have enough military forces in Iraq to conduct and sustain an effective counterinsurgency campaign. As a result, we are forced into a defensive mode, with the exception of our counterterrorism operations, that has essentially made us spectators to the escalating civil war.
How about the training of the Iraqi military? Unfortunately, we are not creating a genuine national, non-sectarian force. We are forming a largely Shia Army that operates more as a local militia. The Sunnis who we have trained operate in a similar fashion. They have acquired military skill with the expectation of being able to protect their local communities from other Iraqis. Our training comes with strings attached. For example, we are not equipping the new Iraqi Army with the type of helicopter and fixed wing aerial platforms required to conduct both counterterrorist and counterinsurgent operations.
What is Counterinsurgency? According to the Department of the Army:
counterinsurgency is those military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency (JP 1-02). It is an offensive approach involving all elements of national power; it can take place across the range of operations and spectrum of conflict. It supports and influences an HN’s IDAD program. It includes strategic and operational planning; intelligence development and analysis; training; materiel, technical, and organizational assistance; advice; infrastructure development; tactical-level operations; and many elements of PSYOP. Generally, the preferred methods of support are through assistance and development programs. Leaders must consider the roles of military, intelligence, diplomatic, law enforcement, information, finance, and economic elements (MIDLIFE) in counterinsurgency.
Without a draft or a substantial increase in coalition forces on the ground in Iraq, we do not have the resources to conduct a counterinsurgency campaign. If we decided to go this route we must be ready to accept that the process will endure several years and that casualty rates for coalition forces would, at least over the short run, increase dramatically. Talking about this is pure fantasy. No political leader in the United States has the stomach or courage go down this road.
It is becoming clearer everyday that the Iraqi Shia are consolidating their power and the fight with the Sunnis will continue for several years. The United States has succeeded in creating a Shia religious state in Iraq; an accomplishment that has horrified Iraq's Sunni neighbors.
If you want to learn more about counterinsurgency in Iraq, take a look at the following:
- Department of the Army Counterinsurgency Operations
- Rand Corporation's Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq
- Relearning Counterinsurgency Warfare by Robert Tomes, U.S. Army War College
- Emerging Counterinsurgency Doctrine on Pat Lang's blog, which has a terrific link to a paper by Austrailian Colonel David Kilcullen.
The one thing you will learn after reading this mountain of material is that we are not doing what the experts recommend we do. When we finally leave Iraq and the war there continues we will only have ourselves to blame for ignoring history and not applying the lessons of counterinsurgency.
I'm not sure what you believe the goal of the war is.
Perhaps BushCo is getting pretty much what they want: a power base in the region, a more "cooperative" government than Saddam's, enriching private contractors, etc. It may be more difficult than they expected, and the American and Iraqi public may force them to scale back their aggression by redeploying to those huge new bases, but I suspect they have much of what they want in Iraq and don't care if the country (and our country) suffers in the process of achieving their short-term gain.
I've come to believe that EVERYTHING they do is very intentional power politics, including the possibility of a troop reduction for political reasons. I think the 900 lb US corporatocracy gorilla will still be sitting there in Iraq's living room and won't be going anywhere until the oil is gone.
June 25, 2006 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is Joe Klein right when he says that the WH, notably Cheney and Rummy, received intelligence as early as June 2003 revealing full blown insurgency in Iraq? Preoccupied with other matters (Valerie Plame's cover) they did not respond. Moreover, General Ricardo Sanchez had 27 people working on it. Is any of this true?
Seems to me the Bush administration's incompetence is legion and enumerating it as you are doing could even encourage what we loosely refer to as political reporters to stop yakking about cut and run and talk about lie and die a little more.
How many American soldiers did not have to die due to the absence of timely counter insurgency strategies? How many might not have been wounded and maimed. War is hell, but this was reckless betrayal.
June 25, 2006 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What puzzles me is that many war planners must have considered mobilizing the existing Baathist bureaucracy into the service of the "New Iraq" - but I haven't read about any such a thing even within the volumes of war criticisms.
Even the Reds mobilized the Tsar's bureaucrats into the service of the new Soviet state. Communism may not have failed at all, come to think of it. The USSR inherited all the graft and corruption of Tsarist Russia with the Tsar's bureaucrats. Just a thought....
Neoboho
June 25, 2006 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry when I read your multiple definitions of "counter.." Hey! Isn't there another descriptive phrase for the ops you've described and gone to such great lengths to define? Yeah there is! "Search and Destroy." You remember. That wonderful method practiced in Vietnam that was so very successful. It was of course successful because there was a draft and therefore there was no limit on the number of troops and firepower that could be devoted to its success. Vietnam and South East Asia are now peaceful free democratic nations. Oh wait. They aren't democratic but they are peaceful for the most part though not without having gone through horrific periods of violence, possibly set in motion by the standard set by "search and destroy."
You're a Republican. You just see that the current batch of Republicans are simply out and out thieves looking for what they can steal from every situation they encounter, whether it be a staged war gone bad or a hurricane. So you've got some outrage. But you still project the super patriotism that disagreeing with you is unAmerican and unpatriotic because you're the ultimate defender of America. I've little doubt that "Joe T" had the same personal self serving philosophy.
Forgive my penchant for stream of consciousness (or rambling for those less kind). Reading your definitions of "counter.." I couldn't but help think of "Kerry." That is, both John and Bob. They both seemed to be specialists in "counter.." or the then "search and destroy" missions. John set himself up as a target for "insurgents" and developed a method of quick counter punching. A low level "feet on the ground" (as it were for small "swift boats") method of counter insurgency. Take fire in a preset manner and return it swiftly and ferociously. Bob went on another type of "search and destroy" mission. Look for "insurgents" and kill them where ever you find them. Sadly, if on the way you should happen on civilians, kill them too because they might jeopardize the mission. Step on their chests and slit their throats then machine gun their children by the dozen because they might jeopardize the mission. It is after all "search and destroy." "Rules of engagement," "free fire zone," and whatever the current redefinition of those terms we're using today made it all OK.
Those are just a couple of examples to help define "counter.."
I might actually even agree with these methods if not for a couple of reasons. America's survival or even the survival of its regular way of life aren't at stake, much as that's a counter to the main blaring of the Republican noise machine. Of course that's strongly tied to the lie of the need for war with Iraq and the laughable (or cryable) umpteenth stage notion that we're try to spread democracy. I may be a cynic but the only other options I see are delusional or pathological.
There's also the other reason. The method you try to define was a failure in Vietnam and it will be a failure in Iraq, even if it were implemented as perfectly as you try to describe.
We had some sense of a noble mission in Vietnam. I think LBJ actually believed in the need for "containment." I don't have the slightest sense that Bush believes in anything other than what HE and his cronies can personally get out of any situation. Even more important than that Johnson was deeply devastated by his failures. Devastated by the effects they had on millions of people. The sense of preservation of "beautiful" Bush minds prevents any such concern in Bush. The joy of "ratfucking" seems to protect the vast remainder of Republicans. But no matter what the sensibilities of the leaders involved, their choice of war venue and implementations were and are deeply flawed. At this point in Iraq I don't think there's anything that can right the mess that's been made. Atrios puts it bluntly. We can't "unshit" the bed the Republicans have shit all over.
It bothered me when Wesley Clark wrote in the Washington Post and posted here implying that he could win the war because he would do it correctly. Maybe the "war" could have been won if it were waged with the intent of giving the Iraqi people freedom, but that was always a cover story, and a belated one at that since the war could not have been sold on "nation building." It could only have been sold on lies. Deadly, murderous lies. "Joe T" lies. We'll be hearing the line that the Democrats lost the war for America for the next few decades just as we still hear that Vietnam could have been won if we were willing to fight harder. Sure, we could have destroyed the nation and killed all its people - to save it. And we could do the same with Iraq. I bluntly posted in a comment to Clark's post that we may yet have to do that, after we leave Iraq and get later terror strikes with direct evidence of Iraqi involvement. Real evidence rather than that manufactured by the likes of the CIA's "Joe T's"
I remember you're first post here. I didn't save it nor do I have any interest in checking if it's still accessible. More to the point was my sense of it. I couldn't help but imagine George Reeves standing, arms akimbo, with the "S" on his chest, "Old Glory" waving proudly in the background and an announcer boldly proclaiming, "truth, justice and the American way."
You and the CIA may well believe that you represent the "American way," but "truth and justice?" That's not the CIA way.
I'll conclude, probably because my attention span has been reached. There's little point in getting worked up about things I have no control over though I can try to counter bullshit somewhat.
What are we now doing in Iraq? It's simple. We're ... what's that term? "Hunkering down" - in those massive bases we're building. Our main worry is that the bases can't be massive enough to allow us to simply stay inside and avoid the mess we've created so we've got to occasionally go out and kill the baddies, how ever we define them in our "rules." We're (and I use the term "we" very very loosely) hoping they can spend themselves out killing each other off and if we can wait it out long enough, we can then go out and take their oil and give the wealth to Republican cronies. No matter if they're all living in the Cayman Islands at that point. They're the real Americans after all and everyone else is a traitor.
But I'm just a cynic. We're REALLY trying to spread democracy. "Freedom's on the march!" Say it loud! Say it proud! ... make it believable.
June 25, 2006 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct post, Larry.
Of course, the real problem is that the US could NEVER have had an effective counterinsurgency program given the basic nature of the operation.
The only possibility for a "successful" operation would have been had the US done what the British AG told Blair was "legal" - go in, make Saddam compliant with UN resolutions about the (nonexistent) WMDs, and leave.
Regime change was illegal, according to the British AG. There was no international law or UN resolution supporting it.
In other words, if we had gone in, left Saddam - or at least some Baathist - in power, discovered there were no WMDs, and left, there would have been no insurgency.
The Shia would have continued to be screwed, but they've been in that position for decades and it's not our problem.
Once the idea was "regime change", the US military was doomed to failure - especially once that moron Bremer disbanded the Iraqi military and succumbed to the notion of "de-Baathification". From then on, it was inevitable that at LEAST the Sunni would form an insurgency.
Even then, it MIGHT have been possible - had, as you say, we sufficient forces on the ground - to delay or impede the insurgency long enough to get a functioning government (assuming, of course, that we WANTED a functioning government, as opposed to a puppet regime.)
But we proceeded to shoot every Iraqi civilian that came near us in a car, plus shoot up neighborhoods trying to find Saddam, and the rest of the US military's stupid incompetence.
This guaranteed that EVERY Iraqi, Sunni or Shia, would end up hating the US and joining the insurgency.
Then we aggravated it some more by trying to take down al Sadr and his Shia militia.
It was one non-stop stupid decision after another.
And in the end, it probably wouldn't have mattered because as long as the US WAS an occupying force, an insurgency was both inevitable and inevitably supported by the bulk of the nation - which guarantees defeat for any occupying power.
The fact that the bulk of our forces are engaged in force protection and logistics protection demonstrates the utter failure of the US military operation in Iraq. Had we a competent counterinsurgency DOCTRINE and forces trained in that doctrine, we would not need this level of force protection and logistics protection.
It goes back to what I've said repeatedly here - the US military is INCOMPETENT. It's senior officers need to be cashiered out and replaced by more imaginative individuals - which do exist, but will never have senior authority because of their results orientation - not under the current system of internal political brownnosing.
The Iraq failure is as big and significant as the Vietnam failure. It involved both political and military failure, as well as the failure of the national media and the democratic process in the election of the morons who started it.
This is a national failure which will have negative consequences on the US nationally and internationally for the next several decades.
June 25, 2006 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on DeanOR. There's a sweetheart deal, sweetheart for foreign corporations and often disastrous for the country they're pillaging, called Production Sharing Agreements. PSA's have been rife in Latin and Central America for years such that in one country with huge natural gas reserves its domestic government ended up realizing 1% of its natural gas revenues. Naturally a PSA now exists in Iraq which means that foreign companies will end up in control of 64%-84% of Iraqi oil. Iraq will be lucky if it winds up with more than a 5% share of its oil revenues. (It should be said that PSA's are very rare among other oil-rich countries.) Obviously, the invasion of Iraq was to open up its oil-rich economy and all other reasons given for the invasion are pure bullshit.
June 25, 2006 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Oh really? How do you know this? How do you know that the actial victims of the bombing raids were "jihadist terrorists"? How do you know they weren't innocent civilians? How do you know they weren't "resistance fighters"? You don't Larry and neither does the US Command in Iraq.
What William Lind said of the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan applies with even more force to Iraq:
Take Zarqawi as a ferrinstance. How many times did the US announce air attacks and ground sweeps against Zarqawi over the past 2-3 years? The Telegraph UK reported just today that US and British security services are troubled that Mailiki's Reconcilliation plan might hamper the very counterterrorist strikes you note so approvingly.
A "few" wrong leads? That is an understatement but even worse, a half truth. Those "abortive sorties" and feckless sweeps (the latter announced well in advance for the most part) - and more than a few - set back the counterinsurgency effort far more than the one hit advanced it.
The US military would fail even if we put half a million troops in theater. It would fail because the US military is incapable of effective counterinsurgency, incapable strategically, operationally, and tactically. Our assets from the Pentagon brass to the grunt on the ground are not suited to fighting a counterinsurgency in the heart of the Arab muslim world.
June 25, 2006 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The US military would fail even if we put half a million troops in theater. It would fail because the US military is incapable of effective counterinsurgency..."
Right on. Totally correct.
The only thing half a million troops would do is kill three times as many Iraqi civilians as they have already. The US has killed ONE PERCENT of the Iraqi population (if the 250,000 figure is used) already.
"Staying the course" means we'll probably kill three to five percent of the population - not to mention that at least ten percent of the forces we send there will be killed or crippled or psychologically damaged for life - which will be a hundred thousand or so US troops damaged.
If this isn't a "war crime", I don't know what is.
June 25, 2006 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Credit Gen Casey for a shrewd move in going public with the "cut and run timetable" in the middle of Bush's latest charm offensive and GOP chest thumping on Capitol Hill. He tried a similar ploy a year ago, to tie Bush to a timetable because he doesn't want to continue to waste his army in a vain and unwinnable cause.
No matter how much in the way additional assets the US might committ, it cannot prevail Bush, with the most powerful military force the world has ever known, has fallen victim to the power of weakness:
Van Creveld called the endgame two years ago:
June 25, 2006 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can accept that Bush & Cie. decided to invade for mostly favorable reasons: to eliminate Saddam, rebuild the country's infrastructure, get the oil flowing, free up a market for trade. I can also accept that the Bushies really did mean to facilitate establishment of a free, democratic, at the very least stable government friendly to the U.S.
And then, yes, I can accept that they thought Saddam certainly must have some WMDs and means to make more of them. Too bad for them there weren't any.
They also wanted a diplomatic and military presence - a secure operational base - in the region. (The Saudis play both sides, as we know, and therefore are untrustworthy hosts.)
It was this last objective that was absolutely essential to achieve. It still is, and I believe it is for this reason above all that explains why Bush & Cie. are absolutely, desperately intent to stay come hell or high water.
Foolish and feckless though they were in screwing up the intelligence and planning, not to mention execution, in a country they thought they knew like the back of their hands, Cheney and Rumsfeld remain deservedly famous (infamous) battle tested veterans of bureaucratic warfare, and they are also (in)famous veterans of propaganda and subversion. With Rove, they practically have the playing field covered, or so they reason.
I firmly believe that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and lastly Bush, are wedded now to a classic strategy of war of political (and - who knows - personal) attrition. Their backs are to the wall. Expect anything and everything. And don't in the slightest underestimate or discount what they may yet be capable of. Kind of like terrorists.
June 25, 2006 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
Most of your posts have been very good, but I feel you are missing the obvious here. As jexster said in the 5:10 PM post, civilians are going to be killed in just about every counter-insurgency operation.
We read a headline that says "Ten insurgents killed by bomb". Who knows? Where they all insurgents? Were they all innocent? Were some insurgents and some innocents? How are the families of innocents (and insurgents) going to feel about the US? Was George Washington an "insurgent" because he used force against an occupier. Isn't it obvious we're perceived as an occupier by many Iraqis? All we do is create more insurgents with these operations.
This stuff didn't work in Vietnam and Algeria. It won't work in Iraq. I'm surprised that's not obvious to you. Bush has led us into another quaqmire that counter-insurgency operations won't get us out of.
Tom
June 25, 2006 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they want permanent bases in this region. They just wouldn't tell the American people that in March 2003, because they would not have received popular support. So instead they lied us into a war of choice. Impeach and convict both Cheney and Bush.
PS Did you notice how the administration lobbied the conference committeee to remove language that both the House and the Senate had incorporated into a bill? The language said that the US would not establish permanent bases in Iraq.
Tom
June 25, 2006 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing: insurgents get hardly any weapons from abroad, partly because possible foreign suppliers do not have to risk anything: we are doing badly anyway.
If we had 500,000 troops in place, Iran, Syria and even Saudis would feel seriously threatened and insurgent would get decent anti-aircraft and anti-armor rockets etc. I see it as a domino theory in reverse: we promised that after Iraq more dominoes will fall.
June 25, 2006 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Gen. Casey is a good man, a straight-arrow guy, and the best commander we've seen in a long long while. I also believe he knows his boss is putting his service men and women at increasing risk needlessly and recklessly. I believe he's morally on our side. Give him all the support we can. We need him, badly.
June 25, 2006 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm at a loss to think of a time when a "counter insurgency" operation would be in our countries best interests. Or, when it would pass muster as an operation permitted by the UN charter. By definition, a "counter insurgency" operation would be a battle in a foreign country against citizens of that country, not a defense of the citizens from a foreign occupier. Really, Larry, it is time for all of us to recognize that being the most powerful military nation on earth does not give us the right to put into place and defend against the citizens whatever government we want there. By international law, only the citizens of a country can determine who will govern them, not us, and certainly not a US corporation. Remember, we did sign the UN Charter, making it a part of our laws.
Hoppy in Sacramento
June 25, 2006 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
How, exactly do you figure this?
I can accept that Bush & Cie. decided to invade for mostly favorable reasons: to eliminate Saddam, rebuild the country's infrastructure, get the oil flowing, free up a market for trade. I can also accept that the Bushies really did mean to facilitate establishment of a free, democratic, at the very least stable government friendly to the U.S.
And then, yes, I can accept that they thought Saddam certainly must have some WMDs and means to make more of them.
Every single fact refutes what you "can accept:" Bush & Co's stated reasons:
WMD's -- They got (and squelched) intelligence saying it wasn't true. When operatives stood their ground they were fired. The Bush crime family knew there were no WMD's. That is why they threw out the weapons inspectors.
A free and democratic Iraq -- Come on, they don't even want that here in the US! If they wanted democracy in Iraq they wouldn't be telling Malik what he can and can't do; and they wouldn't sneak Dubya in with 5 minutes notice with their PM.
Rebuilding the infrastructure -- They could have bought Saddam for a millionth of what they have spent (and they aren't above doing it either), or they could have assasinated him (and don't tell me they aren't above that either -- Cheney could have invited him on a hunting trip!) If they had feet on the ground in Iraq after either scenario they could have gotten the infrastructure rebuilt, but Halliburton wouldn't have been able to siphon of billions in the process, so that was out of the question. Also, they couldn't have excluded other countries that wanted to be players.
They wanted total control, and were too arrogant to realize that making Dubya the "War President" ( with the goal of making him invincible here) would take more than Karl Rove's reality-bending rhetoric. Karl's poison only works when you have sheep who vote the wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. In the real world it is only bullshit.
Jan Knaus
June 25, 2006 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
The UN charter violation is not in the counterinsurgency but the continuing consequence of the clearly illegal war of aggression itself. Technically, Hoppy the US with UN sanction and at the request of the "government" of Iraq is defending a member state against aggression. Like we're not doing in Darfur.
Lies have consequences...counterinsurgency itself is not the crime, just a fruit of the crime
June 25, 2006 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is another aspect of this
PS Did you notice how the administration lobbied the conference committeee to remove language that both the House and the Senate had incorporated into a bill? The language said that the US would not establish permanent bases in Iraq.
The administration thrives on the division between republicans and democrats; the House and the Senate. It is the allegiance to their cause that gives them power, and cooperation and diplomacy only threaten them. Those who are willing to give-and-take with the big picture in mind are not a part of this administration.
One other point: This incredible power grab of the Executive branch (about which I think we probably only know less than half) is not likely to be done with the idea of passing it on to another party in after the next presidential election. Do they know something we don't?
If we don't do something about securing our electoral process it doesn't matter what we say here or on other sites. We are lost unless we take this very seriously.
Jan Knaus
June 25, 2006 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
Let's assume some verion of the current drawdown scenarios occur before November's elections.
Does the current Iraqi Shia state have enough power or enjoy enough support to remain intact? That is to say, 1) does it enjoy sufficient Shia support and 2) can it withstand either separatist or isurgent pressure from the Sunnis and the Kurds? If it cannot stand, how long would it take to collapse?
Thanks. Have a cigar for me.
June 25, 2006 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm convinced there will be massive dishonesty in this fall's election. No way will the Republicans permit the Democrats to get subpoena power in either the House or the Senate.
Tom
June 25, 2006 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I CANNOT accept that Bush & Cie. decided to invade for mostly favorable reasons: to eliminate Saddam, rebuild the country's infrastructure, get the oil flowing, free up a market for trade. I can also accept that the Bushies really did mean to facilitate establishment of a free, democratic, at the very least stable government friendly to the U.S.
We should not pretend, along with the media and most of the political establishment of this country, that this is a legal and moral war. I think it is hard for Americans, with our carefully drawn myths of American justice and Western heroism, to accept that we were wrong to invade a country that was not an imminent threat to us. Our strategic interests, even if they coincide with “spreading democracy” cannot be imposed on a sovereign nation by force, destroying their country and killing and imprisoning hundreds of thousands.
Insurgency? We wouldn’t let a foreign force anywhere near our shores even if they promised regime change (well, maybe). If a foreign power had invaded us, for whatever reasons, I would think that at least 80% of the country would oppose them (about the same as Iraqis opposing U.S. occupation). I’m American and I love my country, but we were the aggressors here and we are wrong. Our occupation will be opposed until we leave. We should have learned from Viet Nam that counterinsurgency only prolongs the inevitable.
June 25, 2006 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Casey put it to Bush big time. Make no mistake. As I said up thread and in more than one comment months ago, Casey's using the same tactics today that he did when, last June he tried to corner Bush last June and more forcefully last November at which time I predicted that Casey's next move would not be subtle. As you might recall, last summer Rumsfeld visited Iraq. Bush was in the middle of a minor Charm Offensive pumping the December election ju-ju. Both Jafaari and Casey and I believe Talabani let slip the "W" word. More of a whisper, I suppose but clear enough that Bush immediately slapped all three down. In November, I believe it was, Casey was a bit more blunt (the Occupation fuels the counterinsurgency). Bush ignored him. Bad move.
Such timing! Right in the middle of the Big Turkey Flight II, the GOP Congressional pep rally, the Rove Master Strategery '06...and as before the Iraqi PM joins the chorus, this time the W word becoming a condition of the well spun "Reconciliation Initiative". From public wrist slap to public bitch slap
In chess, he's a few moves from checkmate. In bridge, a Bath Coup perhaps....Sure "conditions" on the ground won't justify a stay the course draw down. The "projections" of current conditions and trends upon which this "plan" was based are bogus. He's just throwing Bush's bull back at him. So Bush won't make the deadlines if he continues to "stay the course". But that is what Casey expects. He doesn't want to "stay the course". Casey wants to cut the crap and run. He's even given Bush two incentives - a September and a year end target for the elections - Idiot's Choice - either meet deadlines (cut and run) or stay the course, ass in sling.
I done told y'all the next time Bush tried to hustle Casey he'd feel the tip of the General's spear.
Brilliant!
June 25, 2006 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
I don't think they're getting any of those things plus the other assorted power hallucinations of the Cheney Cabal. They have however suceeded in their domestic power games with the breath-taking acquiesence to mock machismo of the Democratic "Opposition's" leaders. The damage that they have done to the US political system will take years to correct, perhaps as long as it will take the middle east to return to a semblance of stability ante
This is a big time eff-up
June 25, 2006 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
In your haste to jump on the first few graphs, you must not have read far enough to get to the really important assertion, which we should see again:
I kind of think we ought to keep our eye on the ball here, and quit debating what they did before, and worry more about what they're gonna do next.
June 25, 2006 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Why Casey wants to Cut and Run
The US Command recently sent hundreds of Bradley AFV's and Abrams tanks back for premature reconditioning. That was the power of sand. Casey's other problem - declining morale - can't be remedied so easily. That is a problem of weaknessJune 25, 2006 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obviously, the invasion of Iraq was to open up its oil-rich economy and all other reasons given for the invasion are pure bullshit."
Partly true perhaps, but global petrol policies were not a major consideration as compared to the goal of eliminating a major long term and lethal threat to Israel. Civil war in Iraq of course also contributes to that goal, at least for a decade or so.
June 25, 2006 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like the Iraqis are going to ask us to leave sooner rather than later.
June 25, 2006 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry my use of "can" mislead. I meant it in the sense, "granting them the maximum benefit of the doubt (like bending over backwards on a cliff) I admit it's plausible that x, y, &/or z may have been the case...). In fact I don't concede that it actually did happen that way, for the reasons given, any of it.
But it is often the case that the real story is like a tale told by an idiot, a pig-pile of of rational, irrational, bizarre and mundane events, driven by a perverse and destructive mix of blind ambition, overweening pride, sheer ignorance and stupidity, sociopathic will, etc. What results in course is tragic, hugely destructive and evil, with so many unimaginable, unforseeable, irreparable und unforgivable consequences.
June 25, 2006 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Whatever the motivations of the Cabal may have been, whatever their geopolitical fantasies, at another level the REAL motivation was revenge for 9/11. Had to kill Muslims and the hapless Sadaam was a target of opportunity.
June 26, 2006 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
I cannot emphasize enough that the significance of Casey's announcement lies in its timing and its politics not its substance. The "conditions" will not be ripe. Casey was being cagey in asserting that the trend lines, support the timetable.
This from Informed Comment today is on point:
June 26, 2006 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The plan is: There is only one role for George W. Bush - A swaggering wanna be war president "hero" in cowboy boots.
The boots may be genuine leather, but everything else is not so genuine.
Rove counts on people having an attention span of about 20 seconds, a sound bite. "Keep
practicing the swagger".
June 26, 2006 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are the lessons of counter-insurgency really lessons at all?
From Napoleon in Spain to Westmoreland in Vietnam large armies have been stymied by small insurgent forces. Clever infantry colonels serving on the large-army side often size-up the situation and re-discover the basic truth that force-on-force doesn’t work well in fighting insurgencies.
These clever colonels describe the essence of insurgent movements and insurgent tactics with considerable insight and they produce books and doctrine suggesting how the large-armies can respond in kind.
But their advice is seldom heeded, and,when heeded, seldom works as well as anticipated?
Why do armies continually discover, analyze and document their failures in counter-insurgency without making material progress the next time around? Because they are stupid? Because they have deficient memories?
Not at all. Large armies fail to internalize and practice what they have observed and analyzed because they are large armies. Even when large armies create commando units, recon forces, special ops units and the like, these creations remain the offspring of large armies.
These special units are exceptions that are tolerated within limits, but the greater military ethos within which they must operate is always the ethos of a large army.
Lt. Colonel John Nagl sits today in the Pentagon as a special advisor on counter insurgency, reflecting the good reception of his book Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam .
In my day in the Indochina war, Col Ed Lansdale was the guru of counter-insurgency. He was later succeeded in this role by Col Dave Hackworth.
Nagl, Lansdale, and Hackworth all grasped the essence of their enemy and documented the lessons with clarity. But in the end, nothing changed.
Armies are armies and insurgents and guerillas are what they are.
Once in a century a general may appear... I think of the brilliant General Vo Nguyen Giap.... who combine brilliant mastery of applied guerilla operations with leadership of a real army).
But these men are rare, and more likely to emerge in a young revolutionary state like Vietnam in the 1950s than in a large, established industrial nation.
So, don’t hold your breath for the “lessons learned” in the Iraq war to help us win the next counter-insurgency. History strongly suggests otherwise.
Professor John Stuart Blackton
June 26, 2006 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn’t mean to sound like I was attacking your post or even those motivations for the invasion. The problem is that it’s easy to buy into at least some of the endless justifications and lose sight of the wrongness of our action in the first place. They may be trying to wrap this up and withdraw, just in time for a boost in the midterm races. But I don’t think that the real original reasons for going in is old news and should be forgotten.
There was no imminent threat and so every thing else is just an effort to legitimize blind aggression with rationalizations. The end result of this fiasco is going to be determined by the real motivations and legitimacy for invading a sovereign country. Regardless of what happens in Iraq (I’ll hope for the best but I expect the worst there), our supposed WOT has been hugely complicated and hindered by this unnecessary invasion.
An illegitimate war has maintained Bush in his role of war president and allowed him to usurp power, curtail civil rights, wreck the country domestically and install several generations of bias in the courts. Even if we get out completely (except those little bases they won't talk about) in the next year or two our bogus justifications for illegally invading and occupying a country will hang around our neck for a long time just like Viet Nam.
What results in course is tragic, hugely destructive and evil, with so many unimaginable, unforseeable, irreparable und unforgivable consequences.
Exactly. And that wasy point. Garbage in, garbage out.
June 26, 2006 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And then there is Algeria.
Simple lesson--a people that refuses to accept defeat is not defeated.
June 26, 2006 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
John Blackton you devil!!! I was in the middle of drafting an email to Joe Klein responding to his latest column, topic: COUNTERINSURGENCY - "Operation Forward Together". Guess who he cited as authority?
You got it. John Nagl.
I incorporated yours.
You are so right. There are no new COIN's under the sun (much less that media show Petraeus is putting on in Baghdad). As you say armies will be armies, Marines will be marines.
Soldiers have no "internal switch". Marines do not have the instinct " not to fight", no escalation on/off not matter how many seminar lectures and journal articles Bill Lind***, Hammes, Nagl and other experts produce.
June 26, 2006 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
***FMFM 1-A, is now available on military.com, DNI (274 KB MS Word Document),
June 26, 2006 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to to get rid of Saddem before 9/11 and Rumsfeld started the planning for the invasion in December 2001.
However, according to Cobra II there is no doubt that virtually everyone thought Saddem had WMD, not nuclear weapons but chemical and biological, including Iraqi commanders. Saddem had them and had used them. He wanted his two main worries the Iranians and the Shiia of Iraq to believe he still had them. It is probably by he did not cooperate with the U.N. inspectors.
Clearly American military commanders thought Iraq had WMD as they equiped U.S. troops with gear to deal with being attacked by WMD. However, it is doubtful that Bush etal. really went to war because of the WMD. According to Cobra II the military was informed that there were over 600 WMD sites. However. the Bush intelligence groups gave the military no list of priorities in regard to the sites. Since Rumsfeld had the invasion go in with such a small force all the sites could not possibly have been secured from being ransacked.
As a result General McKiernan was forced to make his own priorities, essentially sites the military passed on the way to Baghdad and those in Badghdad would be secured first. McKiernan wanted to delay the run to Baghdad in order to use more troops for the invasion.
Bush etal. used selective intelligence to make their best pr. arguments for the war. However, there also seems no doubt that they believed Iraq had WMD because Saddem wanted the world to believe it. However, like everything else they do Bush handled the start of the war and the risks to American forces incompetently.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 26, 2006 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife:
June 26, 2006 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
2005 RAND Corporation study delivered to Rumsfeld.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 26, 2006 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Three cheers for Dr. Paul Freedenberg wherever you are! Those Guerilla War and Counterinsurgecy/Natl Security Policy Seminars (circa 1971 & 1972) still in ROM
June 26, 2006 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Casey Bags Varmit: Green Zone Helicopters Stand-by
Item: Casey Done Nailed Us
Item: OOPS
Item: Same Old Course
June 26, 2006 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The aggression against the government of Iraq is being done by Iraqis. So, we are, in fact, fighting the citizens of Iraq, killing them at our pleasure, to prop up the unpopular government of Iraq. We are not defending the citizens of Iraq, but killing them. This is a far different situation than in Darfur, where, if we were to interfere, we would be protecting the citizens from their government. An insurgency, by definition, is an uprising by citizens against their own government and not an intrusion by a foreign government. The latter would justify our intervention, but not the former. The UN Charter requires that non-military solutions be used in such cases.
Hoppy in Sacramento
June 26, 2006 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's a pretty unfair characterization of the current rules of engagement, although I agree that Bush and Co. have not been nearly as careful of avoiding civilian casualties as they should have been. (using cluster bombs and such, which Clinton banned using in the Yugo. war)
Wasn't the government of Iraq popularly elected? Didn't the UN certify the election as valid? What is the basis for saying it is an "unpopular government?"
So American power, in your view, can be used to defend a minority population against its government but not to defend a government against an uprising by a minority population. Is that the gist of it?
So if we leave before we've established a representation of the Sunni minority in the Iraq government and established peace between the different groups in Iraq and the result of that is that the Shia majority begins a wholesale slaughter of the Sunnis, will you then agree that we should go back in to protect the Sunnis?
And if so, then why not get it right before we leave?
June 26, 2006 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are certainly good questions! Since there is no organized military opposing us in Iraq, and since the insurgency is by Iraqi civilians, we cannot kill insurgents without killing civilians. We raid civilian homes, capture or kill the civilians living there, all based on the judgement of soldiers in the field - I see that as killing civilians at our pleasure. And, for sure, when we use aircraft to launch bombs or missiles at civilian homes, even though our intelligence leads us to believe that insurgents (civilians) are there, we are killing civilians at our pleasure.
As far as the "unpopular" status of the government goes, members of that government have to remain carefully guarded, their names kept secret as far as possible, and as long as an insurgency is aimed at them, they can hardly be called "popular". As far as their being popularly elected is concerned, we don't really know. We have been told they were, but we have also been told repeatedly that Iraq had WMD, that Iraq was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, that Saddam was slaughtering Iraqis, that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and mobile factories for producing more, that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear weapons program, and that Iraq had long range non-piloted aircraft to deliver those weapons. So, your guess is as good as mine as to whether a popular election actually picked that government. But, if it did, that became moot when we learned that the government was arresting and torturing Sunnis.
As to defending the Sunnis now or later, we don't, as far as I can see, do much to defend them now, nor to get them on board with the government. And, when we leave Iraq, as we most certainly will some day, the Sunnis will receive payback for their actions toward the Shiites when Saddam was in power. We certainly didn't rush in to save the Shiites when they were slaughtered in about 1990, so I see no reason to believe we would do so now with the shoe on the other foot.
Should the US rush in to protect a minority from its government? Well, in Darfur there is apparently an ethnic cleansing going on, an example of genocide. Perhaps that is a time for our intervention. I don't see a time for our intervention when a minority in a country rises up against its government, unless it is a diplomatic intervention. Any government incapable of policing its own population is doomed to fail no matter what we do.
And, that leads to the last paragraph! Iraq will suffer chaos when we leave. We are currently pretending that the Kurdish minority problem doesn't exist. We are pretending that the Sunnis will be happy to live under Shia rules. And, we are pretending that our own country will be safer with an extremist religious Shia government in Iraq. I don't go along with those pretenses. When we leave Iraq will disintegrate, the Kurds will be a major problem for Turkey and Iran, and we most certainly will not be safer here with a Shia government in Iraq. So, let's leave now and stop suffering casualties for a pretense.
Hoppy in Sacramento
June 26, 2006 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
Since economics was the true motivation for the invasion, once that is secure the operation will have been a success in the eyes of the Bush White House. If American oil companies have access to Iraqi oil, the U.S. private sector gains access to Middle Eastern markets, and U.S. military bases are operational in the region to protect those interests, the end will be victorious.
Morally speaking we should care about the Iraqi's. Will we or do we? Probably not; at least not from the U.S. government's perspective.
One final note, most people tend to agree that the thriving insurgency in Iraq is a direct result of the occupation forces. If this argument holds any water then it stands to reason that when the occupation ends the insurgency will diminish proportionately.
June 26, 2006 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I think the head is genuine cement.
Tom
June 26, 2006 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
The ink blot strategy modeled after CAP program 40 years ago. Problem: No Ink in the well
June 27, 2006 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Judging by their statements, their actions, and their failures to act, I think that the proposition that the War Party of the US, the entire GOP with one or 2 exceptions and the civilian national command authority not to mention their trrue-believing idolators in the general population, is demonstrably false
That said, Gen Casey among others believe that the Occupation is major contributor to the three year progression of voience and chaos in Iraq and is a continuing obstacle to stability in Iraq.
That said, I don't think you fully understand the contention. Were the Occupiers to leave say within a year, there would not necessarily be a reduction in violence corresponding arithmetically to the forces withdrawn. That is ridiculous on its face and indeed the contention is both more subtle and more compelling than you seem to realize.
The Occupation not only inspires groups to take up arms against what is perceived as a quisling government, it has, in the event, also brought about the disintegration of civiil society and order in Iraq to the point where the very existence of the nation is in considerable doubt. Thanks to the Occupation, sectarian cleavages have become so profound that sectarian civil war has erupted, sectarian strife heretofore unknown in the history of the region - Iraq and beyond Iraq.
The second point you seem not to have understood is that the Occupation has retarded the development of civil and political structures in the country. This is primarily due to the fact that in effect, in the event, the Shiite fundamentalists and Kurdish secessionists who constitute what is generously called the "government". along with Iran, have exploited the US folly by allowing and indeed encouraging the use of force against their Sunni anttagonists. Why bleed, why die, when Bush will do it for you?
Similarly, why compromise, why, in fact, engage in the democratic process of give and take, when there is neither need nor incentive. The US after all is doing your dirty laundry and your adversaries.
So what you now have is this - if the US were to come to its senses and cut and run, there will probably be an increase in violence, which will happen regardless, but at the same time, there will come to be something that today does exist - the will, the means, the incentive for Iraqi powers to end the slaughter and begin the hard task of ......
Come on you know the answer
But you see, not everybody has a grip on reality. Some think the US can destroy then rebuild an entire Arab nation
Incredible isn't it Gettysberg?
For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins. Martin van CreveldJune 27, 2006 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Judging by their statements, their actions, and their failures to act, I think that the proposition that the War Party of the US, the entire GOP with one or 2 exceptions and the civilian national command authority not to mention their trrue-believing idolators in the general population, is demonstrably false
That said, Gen Casey among others believe that the Occupation is major contributor to the three year progression of voience and chaos in Iraq and is a continuing obstacle to stability in Iraq.
That said, I don't think you fully understand the contention. Were the Occupiers to leave say within a year, there would not necessarily be a reduction in violence corresponding arithmetically to the forces withdrawn. That is ridiculous on its face and indeed the contention is both more subtle and more compelling than you seem to realize.
The Occupation not only inspires groups to take up arms against what is perceived as a quisling government, it has, in the event, also brought about the disintegration of civiil society and order in Iraq to the point where the very existence of the nation is in considerable doubt. Thanks to the Occupation, sectarian cleavages have become so profound that sectarian civil war has erupted, sectarian strife heretofore unknown in the history of the region - Iraq and beyond Iraq.
The second point you seem not to have understood is that the Occupation has retarded the development of civil and political structures in the country. This is primarily due to the fact that in effect, in the event, the Shiite fundamentalists and Kurdish secessionists who constitute what is generously called the "government". along with Iran, have exploited the US folly by allowing and indeed encouraging the use of force against their Sunni anttagonists. Why bleed, why die, when Bush will do it for you?
Similarly, why compromise, why, in fact, engage in the democratic process of give and take, when there is neither need nor incentive. The US after all is doing your dirty laundry and your adversaries.
So what you now have is this - if the US were to come to its senses and cut and run, there will probably be an increase in violence, which will happen regardless, but at the same time, there will come to be something that today does exist - the will, the means, the incentive for Iraqi powers to end the slaughter and begin the hard task of ......
Come on you know the answer
But you see, not everybody has a grip on reality. Some think the US can destroy then rebuild an entire Arab nation
Incredible isn't it Gettysberg?
For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins. Martin van CreveldJune 27, 2006 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
San Francisco. CA
Security and stability are security and stablity Gettysberg. Obviously I do not want to contest the obvious. That said, it ain't going to happen. The War on Iraq is lost for any number of reasons which you can learn about up-thread. In addition, I recommend Juan Cole's essay on Zarqawi in which he gives you some insight into the very real and very dangerous forces that the War on Iraq has unleashed in the region.
Stability? Get outta here! As for motivation - I commend Suskind's One Percent Solution and for a quick read, Salon's review. At bottom, economics, though undeniably part of the motivation for war, is just that - a small part. What we have here is a bizzare geopolitical notion meeting an incredibly ignorant and out of touch President. The only thing I would add - Bush and Rove, though ignorant and unconcerned with the history or people of Iraq, knew that war meant votes, that votes meant re-election and a compliant Congress and that all meant power.
That said read the entire:
Key 'graphs
Lies have Consequences, Gettysberg. Not only George danced the tune. Many did.
The time has come to pay the Piper. As Josh Marshall trenchantly observed, Bush is trying to slither off the hook of responsibility for the mess he has made, hoping to leave others to clean it up, as he has in every venture throughout his life.
But we the people will not let him get away..will we Gettysberg?
June 27, 2006 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Gee how could I forget? Be sure to catch Frontline's the Dark Side (now avaliable online!) wherein Larry Johnson's Company comrades, in a democratic wet op, expose the Cheney/Bush Cabal's conspiracy to comitt a war of aggression - the supreme war crime.June 27, 2006 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see. So chaos is inevitable; Let there be chaos!
I'm particularly struck by this statement:
Yes, but isn't the reason Iraq can't police it's own population because we destroyed its police and military. And therefore don't we have an obligation to put it back to where it can police the population? Or are you saying that it's impossible to have a government in Iraq that can police itself -- that the entire place is ungovernable except by somebody like Saddam.
And am I reading you right? Do you equate insurgents and civilians to be essentially the same thing?
You are aware aren't you, that the greatest number of civilian casualties in Iraq has come from insurgent bombs. There were 35 people killed, mostly civilians, just yesterday, as the result of bombs that went off in two marketplaces.
And the election in Iraq was in fact certified by the UN.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EC16C713-671E-4529-ABDE-2A202C924B37.htm
Now yes, we were told there were WMD when there wasn't but that was Bush. This is the UN. On what basis do you dismiss what they say? Even assuming the election is problematic, there is still absolutely no evidence that it's a government picked by the US as a US puppet as you suggest in an earlier post. In fact, Maliki seems unlikely to follow the dictates of Washington. Any other government that would be established in Iraq would be established through brute force. Would that be more legitimate in your eyes. That's what the insurgency is trying to do -- put themselves in power through brute force. Do you consider that a more valid way of establishing a government than a somewhat flawed election?
There's no evidence that the insurgency represents anything but a small portion of the population. How do you justify supporting a small population's attempt to rule over the majority through force?
I fail to understand the moral math that says insurgent violence against a duly elected government and the civilian population it seeks to govern is OK, but violence aimed at stopping insurgents from committing said violence against civilians is wrong because, well, the insurgents are civilians too and so killing them is killing a civilian. Someone who plants a bomb or picks up a gun and fires it at a soldier, is NOT a civilian. He's a combatant.
I find your whole position incredibly perplexing. You condemn the US for killing insurgents because they are Iraqi civilians whom you apparently see as rising up against their evil American-installed government, but you apparently don't give a damn that our leaving is going to plunge same said civilians into a chaotic civil war.
The only thing I can think is that maybe you're an anarchist? You think all government is bad and therefore insurgencies are good?
That's the only explanation I can figure for your sympathetic characterization of the insurgency, which I find to be just as bizarre and wrong as Reagan referring to the Nicaraguan Contras as "Freedom Fighters."
June 27, 2006 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not answering for Hoppy, but your basic premise of
is probably faulty.Most of the military experts classify this as a liberation insurgency where the goal is to evict the occupiers. Revolutionary insurgencies aim to overthrow and replace an existing regime. The goal of national insurgencies is less extreme than revolutionary. They concentrate on a policy or maybe separation.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 27, 2006 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg,
If this argument holds any water then it stands to reason that when the occupation ends the insurgency will diminish proportionately.
Do you mean once the troops leave the occupation will end and so will the insurgency (mostly)?
Have you considered that the insurgency will look at American access to Iraqi oil and US military bases as occupation by the same name, even if by civil rather than military elements? It's hard to believe that the insurgents will make a distinction between their occupiers.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 27, 2006 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink